IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 1320 of 2026 ==========================================================

ASHRAF MOHAMMAD SHAIKH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

ABRAR G SAIYED(9571) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 06/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.G. Saiyed appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jhala appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11995001250035 of 2025 registered with State Monitoring Cell Police Station, Gandhinagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 22 (c) 20(b)(ii) (A) and

29 of the NDPS Act.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the affidavit of the Investigating Officer, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. The allegation against the applicant being of having dealt with the contraband mephedrone – 148 Grams and Ganja – 29 Grams.

ii. It would appear that the contraband was not recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant.

iii. It would appear that the co-accused, who were travelling in the Auto-rickshaw of the present applicant, more particularly the applicant was driving the Auto-rickshaw concerned and whereas the investigating authority had apprehended the accused at the relevant point of time.

iv. The case against the applicant being on basis of a secret information and on basis of one mobile call for around 12 second with accused No.2.

v. From the accused No.2, 29 Grams Ganja had been recovered, whereas the commercial quantity of mephedrone had been recovered from the accused No.1 and whereas nothing had been recovered from the present applicant.

vi. Though the applicant is stated to have three antecedents, the same being under Section 379 of the IPC, vii. The applicant being in custody since 07.10.2025.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11995001250035 of 2025 registered with State Monitoring Cell Police Station, Gandhinagar, on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the condit